It's ludicrously ignorant to call anything below 256 kb/s 'low quality'
I own many CDs, but I rarely listen to them directly. I rip them to FLAC for archiving, and then transcode the FLAC files to OGG Vorbis 192 kb/s for listening. I could probably go to 160 or lower but I haven't done the research and I'm not hurting for 10 megabytes of space per album yet.
In short: CDs get stored on the shelf, FLAC gets stored on my external HDD, and OGG192 gets stored on my PMP. If I find out a lossy format becomes even more efficient and can sustain transparency at lower bit rates, you can bet I'll start encoding to that for my regular listening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soaa- /img/forum/go_quote.gif
My music is all MP3 in the highest bitrate I can get my hands on. It's free music produced and distributed by independent artists for free. When I'm lucky, it's available in 320kbps, but it could sometimes go down to 160kbps. I usually avoid 128kbps tracks entirely.
|
128 kb/s mp3 is pretty good if they're encoding with the most recent version. In abx listening tests users could only find a difference in 50% of tracks, and that's only one momentary part of the song with extremely careful listening. You probably will not notice in normal listening sessions, so you should give their music a chance
I find it a bit ironic though that someone willing to spend a lot of money on audio equipment (or at least, presumably since you're here), would be such a penny pincher about buying CDs. And if you are cheap enough that you are listening to your music with a pair of 20 dollar headphones, I don't really understand why you are so concerned with the minimal amount of distortion you might hear from a sanely encoded mp3 file and not concerned with the relatively high amount of distortion that will be coming from your headset... Just food for thought. The independent artists you listen to probably aren't recording with the greatest equipment ever anyway, though I sense this is a thinly veiled attempt to hide that you are stealing music